• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

No Mr. Pratt, the second amendment is not about shooting political foes.

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by doubtingmerle, Jun 8, 2015.

  1. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Glad to be of help.
     
  2. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Yes, of course. If someone was in favor of allowing sticks, stones, and slingshots--and aren't we all in favor of that?--the second amendment would still be intact.
     
  3. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist

    Take that up with him. I wasn't defending him. I was just mentioning what he said.
    Even if things were progressively more restrictive--and you have not proven that--it does not mean politicians were actively seeking to take your guns. It could mean that they were pushing for the law to asymptotically reach the limit they thought best.
     
  4. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +21
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian


    It's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible gun control," because you can extend "sensible gun control" to cover any type of firearm.


    National Firearms Act of 1934 - required registration and tax of various sorts of firearms; also required one to pay a tax to manufacture certain firearms; mandated a tax and registration of certain safety/courtesy equipment- no licensing requirement for firearms dealers
    Gun Control Act of 1968 - required that interstate firearms transfers and firearms sales go through a licensed and registered network of dealers
    Firearms Owners Protection Act - 1986 - closed the registry of machine guns, essentially banning the manufacture of new machine guns for non law enforcement/SOT/military use
    Brady Bill - 1993 - imposed five day waiting period on firearms sales, mandated the background check
    Assault Weapons Ban - 1994 - banned firearms with certain cosmetic features - the most sensible feature of this law was the sunset period
     
  5. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    I see. And nobody should ever diet either? For it's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible diet," because you can extend "sensible diet" to cover any type of food eaten ever! Therefore no food ever!

    And nobody should ever limit his time viewing TV? For it's a reason not to trust anyone who wants something as nebulous as "sensible limits on TV watching," because you can extend "sensible TV watching" to cover any type of TV program watched ever! Therefore no TV ever!

    Are you starting to see how ridiculous your argument is? Or would you like a few more examples?

    You totally ignored my counterpoint. No problem. I will repeat it again: How do you know that gun control is not asymptotically approaching a reasonable limit? How do you know it will go on forever?

    You even mention an instance where gun control went the other way, to be less restrictive, with the lifting of the assault rifle ban. It only takes one counter-example to prove that an assertion that something is always going in one direction is wrong.
     
  6. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    What if slingshots and sticks were banned for defense but allowed for stones to be used? Would the second amendment still be intact in your opinion?
     
  7. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Yes, if sticks were to be banned for self-defense, I would think that would be a violation of the second amendment, and certainly a violation of reason. Your point is?

    Is your line of reasoning at all relevant to the issue that Pratt argues for holding guns in our hands for possible use against people like our current administration?
     
  8. Panzerkamfwagen

    Panzerkamfwagen Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

    +21
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    If they want to mandate it by legislative fiat, you should not trust that person.

    Once again, apples to oranges. I'm talking about limiting something by legislative fiat. Should the government be allowed to mandate how much TV you watch or what kinds of food that you eat?

    No, I'm not.

    How do you know that it is approaching a reasonable limit?

    The AWB was not lifted. It had a provision where it ended after ten years. If these people wanted to ban the weapons used in crimes, they would ban things like .38 revolvers, not rifles that people rarely use in crimes. Oh, and by the way, like I say before, it's only relatively recently that we've seen a trend less gun legislation.
     
  9. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Right, we should not mandate diets by law. Nobody said we should.

    You completely ignored my point: just because something is trending in a direction, that this does not mean it will go that way forever. Just because somebody is dieting, for instance, that does not mean they will eventually weigh zero pounds. Just because a parent limits TV, that does not mean all TV will be banned. And just because people have made laws restricting guns, that does not prove they want to limit all guns.

    How do you know gun limitations will not stop at reasonable limits?

    I listen to what politicians say. I know no politician that makes a claim even close to what you say. And yet you speak with fear of politicians trying to ban all guns. Would you please stop to listen to what people are saying? If you would listen, you would find they are saying nothing about wanting to ban all guns everywhere.

    Now you are going to quibble about whether the ending of the AWB was a "lifting" or an "ending"? Big deal. The point is that it is no more. There was once an AWB but it exists no more.

    That one counter-example proves that it is wrong to state the gun bans are universally getting stronger at all times. The AWB, for instance, ended.
     
  10. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Obviously, you have no problem with the banning of pretty much anything but a stick for self defense. Good luck with that.
     
  11. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Huh?

    You are aware, of course, that I never said this or anything even remotely close to this, yes?

    Do you know what is called when you make up things about people that you know are false?

    Shame, shame, shame on you, Aldebaran.
     
  12. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Start at the top of page 18 and follow our discussion. You have been saying that banning handguns, banning “assault rifles” and so forth do not violate the second amendment. I finally narrowed down how many weapons would have to be banned in order for it to be violated in your mind, and we finally got it down to where sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.
     
  13. loveofourlord

    loveofourlord Newbie

    +3,773
    Christian
    Private
    I always find it funny when people try to apply a part of the constitution that was originally drafted in the time where most guns took up to a minute or two to reload, and the goverment didn't have much better weapons, to now where someone can fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds in the same time period, and the goverment has technology to destroy a militia before it even gets off the ground.

    How many seriously think they be okay with the average person having the kind of firepower we have today?
     
  14. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    This is complete and total flapdoodle!!!!

    I never ever said that sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.
    I never ever said that sticks would have to be banned in order to consider the second amendment to have been violated.

    I never said anything remotely close to that!!!!!!!!

    I have said over and over and over again that guns can be allowed for self defence.

    Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, read what is being said, instead of making stuff up.

    You aren't even in the ballpark to anything I have been saying.

    This is complete and total flapdoodle.
     
  15. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Once again, this thread is about a man who said it is good to have one's gun in his hand ready to shoot at people like the current administration. It is not about condemning self defence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2015
  16. TLK Valentine

    TLK Valentine You will be who you will be. We are our choices.

    +27,405
    Agnostic
    Single
    Apparently the best defense is a good assassination.
     
  17. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Then please make yourself clear on at what point the second amendment can be restricted until it no longer is effective in the spirit of its intent.
     
  18. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    But now they do. So what should the "people" be limited to? An "assault weapon", (which is nothing more than a modern sporting weapon perfectly suited for home defense, sport, hunting, and military use) is a far cry from the heavy firepower our government has. So is it unreasonable for the populace to have them? How about handguns that carry 15 rounds? Is it such a great comfort to the anti-gun people for us to be restricted to 10 rounds? Or it just a "step in the right direction, but we need to do more" type of thing?
     
  19. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,071
    Humanist
    Seriously? If you want to discuss the second amendment, why don't you start a thread to discuss the second amendment?
    I have said nothing about the second amendment other than to answer your nonstop questions on the subject. Why continue to hijack my thread? If you prefer a different subject, why not start your own thread? This is a complex topic that could be argued ad infinitum with people who like to argue such things. Since you appear to be one who prefers to argue such things ad infinitum, be my guest, start your own thread and argue it as long as you want.

    Once more, this thread is not about the second amendment, but about a man who says it is good to arm oneself ready to shoot at people like the current administration. That is the topic of this thread. Do you agree with me that Pratt was wrong to say this?
     
  20. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +8,680
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Keep in mind that this is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss things. When someone posts a thread that involves guns and using them against either government in general, or political leaders, or self defense, you’re inevitably going to hear something about the second amendment.

    Also note that the second amendment was mentioned since post #2, which wasn’t even made by me.
     
Loading...